The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-24
ter of the Imagination. AS sentiment, it is
very fine to talk about, but as fact it does
ONCE MORE. THE TRUTH.


by such ruling. e. The main question
was: "Was the election of a Lieutenant
governor last November valid one?" Two
members of the court said it was invalid
The remaining three members referred the
question to the General Assembly. (3.) The
Senate, which had the right to judge of the
qualifications of the presiding officer, refused
to join in counting the vote. 1t, therefore,
decided the case against Robertson as was its
prerogative Another important fact: "a. The
votes for Acknowledgements were never
counted in the presence of the two houses, as
the Constitution requires.
The only way to keep the truth of this
matter before the people is to expose and re-
flute the misstatements by which it is sought
to deceive them and apologize for the course
of the revolutionists.
dissolved, and that is enough. The Supreme
Court only gave one reason for dissolving the
injunction. but that was sufficient. There
might have been dozen other reasons, but
the question of jurisdiction met them on the
threshold, and had to be considered and dis
posed Of first. The Supreme Court found
the injunction, and that ended it. AS this
reason was conclusive it was not necessary to
go further and hunt for others. The court,
speaking through Chief-justice Elliott, said:
cit is enough for the decision of this case
to affirm that there was no jurisdiction of the
person of the appellant. 1t is not necessary,
nor, indeed proper to decide any other ques-
0f wan
of jurisdiction of the person is fatal to the
right to go further into the case"
The court did not say this was the only
reason for dissolving the injunction, but as
all five of the judges were agreed that this
was conclusive they went no further The
question of jurisdiction being settled adj
versely to Smiths claim, it was not necessary
nor proper, said the court, to decide any other
questions than that of jurisdiction. The fact
that the court dissolved the injunction be-
cause the action was brought in Marion
county is no proof that they would not have
dissolved it for other reasons had the action
been brought in Allen county. The court
gave reason enough why the injunction
should be dissolved and there stopped. The
exact position of the court, in its own words,
was:
cit is the Judgment of this court that the
Circuit Court had 10 jurisdiction to grant the
order of injunction. and that, upon the facts
set forth in the appellants plea, that court
had no jurisdiction of the person of the appel
liant"
To assert that the court would not have
dissolved the injunction if the action against
Robertson had been brought in Allen county
ton. Three of the FIVE judges held that ths
court had no jurisdiction of the subject-mat-
ter. Judge Niblack said, ri am further Of
the opinion that the court below did not have
and could not have any jurisdiction over the
subject-matter of the action" Judge Elliott
said, II fully concur in the opinion of my
| brother Niback, that the courts have no ju-
risdiction of the subject-matter of the action I"
Judge collars said, IL agree with Judges
| Niblack and Elliott that in this case the court
has not jurisdiction Of the subject-matter 4"
| From these expressions it is evident that even
if Smiths action had been brought in Allen
county, and an Injunction had been granted
there, the Supreme Court, By a majority of
its judges, would have dissolved it and thrown
the case out. But for al the purposes of the
case it is enough that the injunction was dis
solved. 1t does not matter whether the court
had one or dozen reasons for its decision.
| 1t dissolved the injunction and left Robertson
free to assert the title deriyed from the peo-
pie and confirmed by the Constitution.
2. The Sentinel says: 1.-THE main question
was, WAS the election of a Lieutenant-gov-
ernor last November valid one7'" This is
not true. That question was not properly
before the Supreme Court It was barred
out by the want of jurisdiction Judge
Niblack said: Having reached the conclu.
sion that there was no jurisdiction over the
person Of the appellant there is nothing we
can say on the merits of the controversy
which can properly be considered as of bind
ing authority" The opinions expressed by
two of the judges were mere individual opin
ions, Of no more force than those of any
other individuals They are obiter dicta
and do not figure in the case at all The
court, AS a court, simply dissolved the injunc
ton, and left the case to be decided by tn,
Legislature in the manner prescribed by til,
Constitution. Green Smith and the Senat,
refused to let it be decided in that way.
3. 1t is not true that 'the Senate has tn,
right to judge of the qualifications of tn